Michigan ballot proposals

October 30, 2006

NO on Proposal 1 It doesn't make sense to tie unknown future funding needs to the Michigan Constitution. Proposal 1 would create a legacy fund with recreation fees -- money paid for fishing licenses, state park entrance and the like -- and prevent that money from being spent for other purposes. It is the Legislature's duty to make real-time spending decisions, considering all resources. A constitutional restriction on how unknowable future needs could be met doesn't make sense. NO on Proposal 2 The Michigan Constitution should not ban affirmative action in public employment, education or contracting, based on race, gender or ethnicity. That may be one of the few things Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican challenger Dick DeVos do agree on. Affirmative action is hard to define and has many complexities. The argument that affirmative action has not always been used fairly does not negate the fact that many actions taken in its name have greatly advanced the cause of equal opportunity. It would be wrong to chisel a ban on affirmative action into the Constitution. NO on Proposal 3 Proposal 3 would change mourning doves from songbirds into game birds. Except that they are songbirds -- something Michigan residents have known for 100 years. To use live birds for target practice, which is essentially what would happen if mourning doves could be hunted, is troubling to the 275,000 people who signed a petition to put Proposal 3 on the ballot in order to block a legislative move to allow dove hunting. Michigan hunters don't lack for game. There already are 40 species of game birds. To add this gentle backyard bird to the list makes no sense. YES on Proposal 4 It is fitting that the Michigan Constitution protect property rights, which Proposal 4 would do by prohibiting government from taking private property for a private use. Eminent domain -- taking private land for public use -- sometimes is necessary and would continue to be constitutional. NO on Proposal 5 Proposal 5 would guarantee that school funding increase with inflation. It also would cap retirement fund contributions paid by schools and shift the remaining portion to the state. This proposal might sound as if it's pro-education. In fact, it could become very burdensome to taxpayers without benefiting students.